Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd
like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our
other members.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If you are a member in good standing, then you can navigate to the 2015 Miami Dolphins Media Guide from the navigation bar at the top of the forums. Also, in the sticky section of the main forum, there is a link to vote on your top 50 dolphins players of all time.

Is Ireland incapable of identifying explosive players?

There is a common narrative that Ireland can't draft skills players. Is that the case or have they simply not acquired many skills players in the first place? Can we do an analysis on his picks and acquisitions at the WR, RB and TE positions and see what percentage of those picks/signings paid any dividends.

Anyone can agree that the skills players have been ignored during his tenure, but is it a matter of what they prioritized or that they can't identify talented players at those positions? I ask because I think this year will definitely be the year that they prioritize the skills positions over line positions. If they spend a 1st round pick on a WR, should we fear them picking the wrong player?

If you take away the Brandon Marshall trade, since he shipped him out 2 years later, his top acquistitions in order: Brian Hartline, Davone Bess, Reggie Bush, Anthony Fasano, and Charles Clay. That is a terribly depressing list.

My feeling is more of one that the previous regime devalued skills players due to their ground and pound philosophy. As such, not many skills players were acquired in the first place. What I am looking for is a percentage. 10 out of 30 successfull acquisitions, or something like that. How many times have they tried to add explosive players with high draft choices or big FA money, and of those, how many succeeded?

I just think Philbin priotizes skills players more than the previous regime, and as such, Ireland's philosophy will adjust to that by going after more skills players. What I am trying to see though, is if he has an eye for those kinds of players at all.

If we're going to discuss this seriously I would say that one issue with this front office (not just Ireland) is that they may equate triangle metrics to explosive play making ability a little bit too much. For a Jeff Ireland it seems like a guy is either a big/strong type or a size/speed type.

I'm not trying to be over critical because it's easy to make some of the mistakes they've made and in fact I've fallen into some of the same traps. Good example being Clyde Gates.

Triangle type metrics do relate to explosiveness. Bigger, stronger, faster and quicker players can often be more explosive. But a lot of time there's a combination of explosiveness and play making on the field that just isn't described by the explosiveness alone, or the triangle numbers. Some of the players he's taken have definitely been explosive, but they weren't play makers.

If we're going to discuss this seriously I would say that one issue with this front office (not just Ireland) is that they may equate triangle metrics to explosive play making ability a little bit too much. For a Jeff Ireland it seems like a guy is either a big/strong type or a size/speed type.

I'm not trying to be over critical because it's easy to make some of the mistakes they've made and in fact I've fallen into some of the same traps. Good example being Clyde Gates.

Triangle type metrics do relate to explosiveness. Bigger, stronger, faster and quicker players can often be more explosive. But a lot of time there's a combination of explosiveness and play making on the field that just isn't described by the explosiveness alone, or the triangle numbers. Some of the players he's taken have definitely been explosive, but they weren't play makers.

Agreed two glaring examples that immediately jump out and Clyde Gates and Patrick Turner. In theory they both looked good, one had freak athleticism, the other had very good size. However while they had the physical abilities and talent they just simply were not play makers .

Agreed two glaring examples that immediately jump out and Clyde Gates and Patrick Turner. In theory they both looked good, one had freak athleticism, the other had very good size. However while they had the physical abilities and talent they just simply were not play makers .

Not just them but look at the bottom of the roster, guys like Les Brown, 7-11, Roberto Wallace, etc. All test off the charts good, physically. None of them have an extensive history of making plays at a high level.